This is true. It's why if you coach long enough you will have that athlete that basically falls out of the sky and joins your team with basically no training or experience who is already faster than your top runners. I have had a couple of these runners amongst several hundred.
The good news is that you can develop those other less gifted athletes to be successful to reach whatever potential they have which few do. But it can be discouraging when the opinion might be that they are not putting in a hard enough effort, not effectively training, or even are just not as tough as those front runners.
In the horse racing world, with drugs anything is possible.
Read what I said carefully…racing horse and dog breeders have known the value of genetics via breeding for decades, if not centuries…long before PED’s were even a “thing”.
When on other threads I have stated that there are still posters on letsrun who deny the very large role that genetics play in athletic success, I have been challenged to show where these people are…(true fact…honest).
Well folks…like zebras round the last waterhole on an African plain…here they come to gather around threads like these…the DREAMERS who still think that success and athletic glory is within their reach…IF only they increase their weekly mileage a bit more / find the right mix of intensity and volume / get their rest and recovery factors in order / add strength training / find the right key interval session etc etc…then success and a pro contract will be theirs for the taking.
Nobody denies that training plays a part…but for anyone that doubts how much genetics actually matters…please take the next ten years to either slowly integrate Jakob’s current training towards your own, or your child’s weekly routine…and then let’s see how close you come…if you’re more sprint orientated then adopt Usain’s or Michael Johnson’s methods, and see if you can come anywhere close to emulating those times…
Come on…it’s only ten years…and then athletic glory and all the fame and riches that go with it will be yours…
Running has never been much about genes only but gene expression known as epigenetic environment. Where you are born, how you were brought up, what water you drank, what food content you took and what air you breath and what mobile phone you use are all that matters for whether you will succeed as a high-performance elite athlete.
You can ask macho Italian brand Renato Canova, he will definitely agree with me.
Firstly let me tell you a story of my XC team. We all sucked. Most of our coaches thought our talent was negligible. We had majority guys running 18-19 minute 5k with one guy running 17:50s. Then we had a new coach who cared about us, he gave us appropriate training then boom. Our average became 15-17 minute for the 5k we also had a guy who made it to 14:57. That’s just one example, another example would be a school I know with a good team, they always won league and local meets then their coach quit then suddenly they started sucking. I’m not denying that there is a genetic aspect to running but most people here make it out as that if you don’t have the right genes you are doomed to suck for life. That’s the case for a few people but not for majority. I ask what genes are the one that affect running, many people don’t have answer to that. The ones that do answer VO2max, which makes sense but then there’s also a case where out nine year old in Norway has the same vo2max as Eluid kipchoge yet couldn’t even run half as fast. VO2max is also not an indicator of running potential because it is improvable. I know a case where a girl went from 36 to 57 in terms of it. There are also some who say a lean physique is the genetic marker to talent in running. But those people fail to realize how anyone could have a lean physique if they worked for it. By eating right and working out, for some it’s easier for others it’s harder but unless you have some rare thyroid case it’s inevitable. When people can’t come up with another reason they mention the slow twitch fast twitch theory. Slow twitch works for distance while fast twitch works for sprints. That’s what’s the known theory is but while it’s harder to switch your muscle fibers to fast twitch it’s relatively easy to switch to slow twitch which is mostly used in distance running. I also hear “raw speed” which makes no sense but I’m guessing people mean 400m and above ? Because 99% of distance runners don’t have raw speed which is anything less than 400. 400 requires endurance most untrained people would struggle to run that because they don’t have the endurance to keep them going compared to running like 200m-100m where it’s actual raw speed. It’s also important to note that raw speed is proved to be trainable but it’s harder to train compared to endurance
Sports like volleyball and basketball are ones that could be considered a genetically oriented sport, as both of them require height or natural athletic ability to succeed. But it’s still mainly also skill factors that play to it. There’s a reason running is known to attract unathletic skinny nerds. There’s a reason it’s the only no-cut sport. It’s simply enough to be achieved by anyone.
My point is running is mostly mental and trainable than genetic. At most
80% of running- non genetic
20% of running- genetic (doubtable)
After sifting through this thread, I think the more interesting question would be: What do you think anyone could hit in say the 5k/10k with adequate training. I had a teammate that swore that any male could run a 35min 10k if they trained well enough. Now for some it will take more training than others no doubt, and age also plays a part as well. It'd be curious to see what people's opinions are on that. Could the average male run a 17min 5k/35min 10k with appropriate training in a 5-10yr window starting at 18yo? If not what do you think is an achievable time for most "hobbyjoggers" male and female?
OP you've had 4 pages and not one poster has offered any real evidence that genetics is a major factor in predicting running ability. The best they can do is cynical reference to the Y chromosome (see, it makes men faster than women lol) and to extreme body types (see, this family of huge people wouldn't be good at running.)
None of it remotely explains why 150 lb male runner A runs a 4:10 and 150 lb male runner B runs a 5:50. And they know it. They know in this day and age, if any scientist agreed with them, studies to ID the alleged genes involved would already have been done, repeated, reviewed for years on end by now.
There is no "running gene."
There are running genes (plural),
NAME THEM.
Do you really think you're winning this argument? It's 2023. Genes and their function aren't some vague mystery anymore.
horse and dog breeders are businesspeople who also know that others in their business see pedigree as everything. so regardless of outcome/performance they know they can make a buck off the right family tree. but if it was a guarantee then michael jordan's son would be a NBA all star and not marrying the ex-housewive of scotty.
as you move up the levels they aren't handing you millions of their dollars on theory. you might make a junior travel team or youth national team for being someone's kid. you aren't getting college or pro status without performances.
and i get once in a blue moon some kid tries out for HS or a D3 and is pretty good. but usually not amazing without help. and they won't even get in the tougher doors without something manifest.
i also think you folks are confusing what is usually, "you are above average, come try out" -- normal reality -- with outlier tales of some untutored legend. exceptionally rare or outright myth. even when some kid on here says i play soccer and i ran a 4:30 mile cold, have you played select soccer, it's a ton of running, they aren't that raw. a whole chunk of my select team also ran either XC or TF.
I'm so sick of hearing people talk about ability as if it derives from one or the other: nature or nurture.
It is, like all things, a combination of both.
It's like hearing two people argue over what makes a rectangle bigger: the height or the length.
here's my deal. most college soccer players i knew had been playing since they were 5. if someone hadn't been playing since they were 5, or came from outside the select system and you played them in HS soccer, you could tell. once in a blue moon someone would be incredible but usually also raw in some way where at their genesis they would be worse than the worst player on your team. you could see potential in some kids but without having learned all the little "soccer IQ" team chess match things, or having rounded out their game, or worked on their technique, they'd be a liability or at best mixed bag.
if we're talking about running, they might be fast but lack endurance, pull muscles, poor hurdling, slow or false block reactions, etc. etc. at the highest levels, yeah, they're talented, but so is everyone, and a chunk of it is do you execute the little things well. or are you just amazingly, unusually fit. and neither of those just happens yesterday. it might be a quicker bridge than soccer with the ones who played since 5, but it's years and not days.
and then like i said on soccer+track, what you find in reality is your novel project actually has spent years running and competing, just not your particular way. someone kicks a throughball towards the corner flag and they try to outrun someone to it. they aren't exactly pure talent no work ever. it's a fake argument.
i know you think this is a "diss" but you realize you just said it's a "conditioning sport." QED, thanks. you just gave away the store to try to mock me.
your last sentence assumes your conclusion. you simply assume away that a hard worker never wins. i do not buy everyone is training equally well or receiving equal coaching. you could be overworked. my college soccer team was. there are teams like stanford and oregon that seem to produce better TF guys.
you ignore the "boling" issue where what is wow at HS is no longer wow in college, and we have to wait and see who progresses. what's your argument? he wasn't "that" talented? he couldn't "outwork" anymore? he was The Guy at 18. period. no one looked better that age. and yet. that The Guy age 18 out of HS isn't always The Guy when he begins running college or The Guy age 22, says all we need to know re trying to discern "talent."
like i said, while you pretend like it says something going forward, it doesn't. you can't tell me which one turns out better. you can only look backwards and say, benefit of the races run, "bolt was more talented." that isn't so much predictive when he was 18 at historian work age 37. yeah, duh, this end of his career, GOAT. anyone can come in at the end and say wow was he talented. go back to 18 when almost no one breaks 10 and tell me who will be the ones getting well down in the 9s. and in 20 years you can tell me talent won out.
yeah i thought so.
In regard to your second paragraph, everyone is a hard worker at the collegiate level. Trying to out train the people ahead of you is more likely to cause injury than to close the gap.
You seem to be referring to athletes that matured early but that doesn’t have anything to do with training. Eventually it will come down to talent.
Did you run XC/track in college? There were guys that could easily outrun me and they trained just as hard as I possibly could have. We were all strong runners and the difference was top-end speed and no training will change that.
i ran track in college. my point is for years before that, junior high, HS, i destroyed people.
my experience in college some of the time someone showed up faster. but sometimes they started out mediocre and went on a trajectory. my point is when you start college you DO NOT KNOW who is who. within reasonable limits, eg, a kid running a 12s 100m isn't likely the future usain bolt.
but, say, sam blaskowski went from running 10.8 to 10.1 in college, from D3 type to winning D3 and could have been D1 to losing in the worlds trials. your fake game is come in at the end and say talent won out. but he was probably 1/3-1/2 of a second slower entering college than a pile of D1 scholarship kids who weren't winning national titles and would have been presumed the better bet to make any trials.
to me the fact we don't know ahead of time beats your argument. we make assumptions but they are educated guesses that are disproven in x% of races or careers. it's probabilistic rather than absolute.
jamaica is likely good at sprints because they appear to funnel everything they have into <800. i was discussing southlake carroll the other day on here. they have state winning XC and a school twice the size of normal. they also appear to have next to no one running hurdles, sprints, or doing field events. having had some success, they will have plenty of buy in. but the team is inherently bounded. so jamaica has sprinters, jumpers, and maybe the odd thrower. this is how they use their limited resources.
it helps they have not just good but incredible sprinters who can then teach the next set.
for contrast, kenya used to be very much one set of stuff, but has over recent years begun branching out. 100, 800, some field. i assume they figured out what southlake needs to learn, that having 100+ in some distance pipeline is overkill, and you can probably win state with some smaller amount and redirect some people to 800 and down. and then maybe win their local district in track and not just XC.
In regard to your second paragraph, everyone is a hard worker at the collegiate level. Trying to out train the people ahead of you is more likely to cause injury than to close the gap.
You seem to be referring to athletes that matured early but that doesn’t have anything to do with training. Eventually it will come down to talent.
Did you run XC/track in college? There were guys that could easily outrun me and they trained just as hard as I possibly could have. We were all strong runners and the difference was top-end speed and no training will change that.
i ran track in college. my point is for years before that, junior high, HS, i destroyed people.
my experience in college some of the time someone showed up faster. but sometimes they started out mediocre and went on a trajectory. my point is when you start college you DO NOT KNOW who is who. within reasonable limits, eg, a kid running a 12s 100m isn't likely the future usain bolt.
but, say, sam blaskowski went from running 10.8 to 10.1 in college, from D3 type to winning D3 and could have been D1 to losing in the worlds trials. your fake game is come in at the end and say talent won out. but he was probably 1/3-1/2 of a second slower entering college than a pile of D1 scholarship kids who weren't winning national titles and would have been presumed the better bet to make any trials.
to me the fact we don't know ahead of time beats your argument. we make assumptions but they are educated guesses that are disproven in x% of races or careers. it's probabilistic rather than absolute.
Sure. Nobody is going to argue that when you take people in the top 1% in talent and train them for 4 years that some will improve more than others. But there is a reason why he could run 10.8 and I struggled to break 13…
my personal experience the kids who were the best soccer players ages 5-10 were generally almost uniformly not the dominant age 18 or college kids. you could almost set a watch to that being wrong, with few exceptions. so much of it is who develops into a better athlete and that their technique continues to progress and progress. because what looks skilled age 10 is rudimentary age 18.
my experience speed in junior high or HS or even beginning of college was only somewhat predictive and there was a reshuffle that did not follow expectations uniformly. the kid who couldn't regularly make distance events at a good junior high is the fastest HS kid. there is a tiering that is fairly about talent. but within the tiers it reshuffles to defy a chunk of expectations. people get hurt, plateau, get bored, others work harder or grow.
It's pretty damn tough to know what exact phenotypes correspond to what genes, especially when you consider epigenetics. It seems like your understanding of genes is "This one makes you have blue eyes, this one determines how long your toes are." In reality, genetics is an extraordinarily convoluted field with hundreds or thousands of interconnecting pieces and parts, and you'd need a huge in-depth study to determine what genetic factors play a role in determining distance running aptitude.
You saying "lol you can't name Gene X4R87B that makes you good at running therefore genetics don't play a role" is laughably simplistic.
my personal experience the kids who were the best soccer players ages 5-10 were generally almost uniformly not the dominant age 18 or college kids. you could almost set a watch to that being wrong, with few exceptions. so much of it is who develops into a better athlete and that their technique continues to progress and progress. because what looks skilled age 10 is rudimentary age 18.
my experience speed in junior high or HS or even beginning of college was only somewhat predictive and there was a reshuffle that did not follow expectations uniformly. the kid who couldn't regularly make distance events at a good junior high is the fastest HS kid. there is a tiering that is fairly about talent. but within the tiers it reshuffles to defy a chunk of expectations. people get hurt, plateau, get bored, others work harder or grow.
My experience is the opposite. The top hockey players/baseball players as 10 years old were more or less the top ones later in HS and the few that did college. But which ones was harder to say. If you took the 300 kids that were playing little league, the ones that played in HS were pretty much all in the top 10%. Now which of those top 10% would be the top kids was much tougher. But the kid hitting .150 against 12 year olds didn’t start hitting .350 in HS. Same thing with hockey. Some of the good kids hit physical limits (stopping at 5’7 while the kid next to him with the same skills grew to 6’2) and fell off. I am willing to bet basically none of the bottom half of soccer roster developed into stars latter.
And to make it running related, in the last 30 years how many 1500,3k st, 5k, 10k, and marathoners never qualified for footlocker or NXN? There are definitely some (mainly injury or pulling a Brian sell and not training in HS) but not many. Some how the talent of the top 50 or so runners is more important than the mass of 100k behind them.
Speed plays a bigger part than you let on. I'm somewhat genetically gifted in regard to speed, somewhere above average, but nowhere near being world or even national class. I could roll out of bed, 15lbs overweight and having not run for weeks or months. Give me spikes and I'll run 24/53 for 200 and 400. That's not freakish or anything, but the faster you get in longer distances, the more speed plays a part.
Want to run a 1:55 800? You better have at least 53 400 speed, if you can't do that, your chances of sub 1:55 get drastically slimmer. Wanna break 4:10 in the mile? Gonna be hard if you've got no genetic wheels and can't even do a 54. Wanna win your tactical conference 5k? The winner might have 49 open speed, good luck outkicking him.
On the flip side, wanna run a 16 minute 5k? No problem, as long as you can muster up a 4:40 mile and squeak under 2:10 for an 800, all you need to do is develop aerobically and hit some race pace work and it's practically yours! But if you wanna run a 13:30 5k, the conversation is very, very different.
What about the guy who constantly runs every repeat full speed to the point of damaging his body every day from the first day of practice until the last day of practice. That was me in 8th grade. (Sure you think I'm stupid but I can guarantee you it happens to thousands of Kenyans every year!) I had some talent, that's why I was there, but I also had a hearing problems which took a long time to overcome.
Totally bullsh!t OP. I’m a former D1 runner who has spent the last ten years busy in the business world. I chain smoke marijuana, drink way too much booze and eat like absolute garbage. I can go out and run a 22 minute 5K WHENEVER I want.
